On Up with Chris Hayes, we can summarize by saying filibuster bad, majority rule good -- let Obama's fiscal light shine -- support workers -- blah, blah, blah. Much of the progressive agenda sounds good before you think about it. Of course those who win in elections should have their say in legislation. Of course we need to raise more money if we want to pay for government. Of course the game is rigged against workers. Duh.
It pays though to think before accepting the progressive agenda. It also helps to know a little about history and economics and libertarian ideology. Maybe the filibuster is misused in congress and the majority should be able to have their way on most issues, but, with our statist system, majority rule is really dangerous. It's dangerous enough that 60% can vote in changes that will transform the country, but it's really dangerous to give either party the power in a statist system to make policy with a majority vote. The first party to get the power will most likely give itself such advantages it would be almost impossible to get them out of power.
Regarding the President's plan to deal with the fiscal cliff, as it's called, Hayes said that no one really cares about the debt and deficit. This is an attitude that's prevalent among progressives -- money's cheap and we'll deal with the debt later. Progressives see an opportunity after the election to move forward on the progressive agenda, and they will not let a budget fight stop them. Obama didn't win a second term to be a capitulating Bill Clinton who gives into the Republican concern for deficits and debt. Progressives believe that all the talk about debts and deficits is only code to stop progressives from raising taxes on the rich and to stop their investment plans. Even if Hayes is right, it's the height of irresponsibility to not only ignore the debt but to add to it significantly with more spending on "stimulus". The same kind of "stimulus" that didn't stimulate before. Even if Americans don't really care about the debt and deficit, other countries do, and reality cares. Progressive attitudes reflect the attitudes of the people when Rome fell, when Britain fell and when all other power structures crumbled under mismanagement, sloth and irresponsible waste of resources.
Yes, I have sympathy for those who are not politically connected, because this has been my lifelong battle, fighting against a system that's rigged to protect a power elite, but to give more power to the State, which is the architect of the rigged system, is insane. What has to happen is limits placed on power so that the parties aren't battling over the feeding trough which has perverted the market and provided a path for the most unscruplous and politically savvy to gain protected power, thus suppressing workers and small businesses.
I have a problem with progressive means, because to me it appears that the agenda is all about political power -- however, to help the suppressed and oppressed, it will take economic means in a free market and limits on State power.